Search This Blog

Wednesday, 29 May 2013

Police refused to allow women in Swaziland to march in protest against
gender-based violence.

They told the women they could not march because police
and the local chief did not want any noise ahead of the election soon to be
held in the kingdom.

The march at Siphofaneni was to protest at an incident in
the area when a wife was paraded naked for three kilometres by her boyfriend
after he accused her of being ‘promiscuous’.

The Swaziland Rural Women’s Assembly responded by
organizing a march in solidarity with the woman. They wanted to march for three
kilometres in the area then go to a church and hold a prayer against gender based
violence.

Reports from the scene today (29 May 2013) say police and
the chief of the area yesterday refused permission to march or hold the prayer
service.

However, SRWA decided to defy the ban and continue with the march.

Social media from Swaziland report one eyewitness saying,
‘Upon assembling and preparing for the march the police told us to go away and
stop our “shit” because, “they don’t want noise here”’.

‘Serious electoral flaws and human rights abuses by the Iranian government
undermine any meaningful prospect of free and fair elections on June 14, 2013.
Dozens of political activists and journalists detained during the violent
government crackdown that followed the disputed 2009 presidential election
remain in prison, two former presidential candidates are under house arrest,
and authorities are already clamping down on access to the internet, having
arbitrarily disqualified most registered presidential and local election
candidates.’

Sarah Leah Whitson,
Middle East director at Human Rights Watch said, ‘Fair elections require a
level playing field in which candidates can freely run and voters can make
informed decisions.’

Swaziland wants to do business with the Iranian regime. The news agency
FNA reported, “‘We want strong ties between the two countries and while we are
completely satisfied with the current relations with Iran, we are also after
expanding these relations,’ the Swazi justice minister [Chief Mgwagwa
Gamedze] said in a
meeting with his Iranian counterpart Morteza Bakhtiari in Tehran on Tuesday.’

Swaziland, which is ruled by King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa’s last
absolute monarch, is holding its own election later this year. Political
parties are banned from taking part and members of parliament have been
silenced from appearing on state controlled broadcast media in the kingdom.

Swaziland’s economy is in free-fall and it is finding it almost
impossible to attract foreign investment into the kingdom.

According to the FNA report the Swazi Justice Minister, ‘called on Iran
to provide the ground for a visit by the Swazi businessmen to Iran, and said, “No
doubt, more job opportunities will be created in our country after such visits.”’

Other organisations did attend, but when they wrote their
reports on the poll, they too, declared the election flawed.

The observing bodies are in agreement that elections in
Swaziland are not democratic because political parties are not allowed to take
part, and the people are not electing a government.

Many observing bodies also state that the parliament that
is elected in this way has no power. This is because King Mswati rules as an
absolute monarch. He selects the person to be prime minister – the present PM
Barnabas Dlamini was not even elected to parliament. The king and his prime
minister then select cabinet ministers.

Swaziland has two chambers of parliament: the House of
Assembly and the Senate. Of the 65 members of the House, 55 are elected by the
people and another 10 are appointed by the king. None of the 30 members of the
Senate are elected by the people: 20 are appointed by the king and the other 10
are selected by members of the House of Assembly.

Following the last election in 2008, the Commonwealth
election monitoring team declared that the voting was flawed and urged Swaziland to rewrite its constitution, if the kingdom wanted to ‘ensure that
Swaziland’s commitment to political pluralism is unequivocal’.

The Commonwealth group issued a report saying, ‘it is widely accepted
internationally that democracy includes the right of individuals to associate
with and support the political party of their choice… Yet in practice
this right currently does not exist [in Swaziland]’.

In February 2013, the main opposition group in Swaziland, the banned People’s
United Democratic Party (PUDEMO), called for international election observers
to boycott this year’s poll because political parties are outlawed.

Mario Masuku, President of PUDEMO, told Voice of America
radio the election was a charade and a mockery of democracy and an affront to
Swazis. He said the balloting did not allow Swazis to freely choose their
representatives.

In 2008, of the 400,000 estimated eligible population
registered for the elections, when it came time to vote fewer than half these
people (47.4 per cent), actually did so.

The Electoral Institute of Southern Africa (EISA) in its
observer mission report on the election concluded
that large numbers of Swazis heeded the boycott call and ‘thereby signalled
their disenchantment with the current Constitutional dispensation’.

Monday, 27 May 2013

Newspapers in Swaziland deliberately suppressed
criticism about a visit by the Equatorial Guinean president after being
instructed to do so by a Swazi government minister.

The Media Institute of Southern Africa
(MISA), Swaziland chapter, has publicly revealed for the first time the extent
of the collusion between Swaziland’s newspapers and the government.

MISA, the foremost media freedom
advocacy group in the region, reported on how the newspapers in Swaziland covered
the visit to the kingdom by President Teodora Mbasago.

In its annual report on media freedom in Swaziland, published this month, MISA, said, ‘In January 2012, Minister of
Information, Communication and Technology (ICT), Winnie Magagula held an
impromptu meeting with all [print] editors , where she told them they must
positively report the visit of Equatorial Guinean President, Teodora Obiang
Nguema Mbasago.

‘The newspapers heeded her directive:
all the media houses waxed lyrical about the expected socio-economic benefits
to be reaped from a questionable oil deal.

‘The editors suppressed President
Mbasago’s negative stories of graft and repression that were run by the
international media. In fact, the Swazi
Observer was forced to apologise for a cable news item published by SAPA
(South African Press Association) that negatively exposed the President.’

There are only two newspaper groups in
Swaziland that publish daily and weekly titles. The Swazi Observer group is in effect owned by King Mswati III, who
rules Swaziland as sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch. The Times of Swaziland is an independently
owned group.

All broadcast media in the kingdom are
state controlled, with the exception of one TV channel that supports the king,
and a radio station that does not carry news or current affairs.

In its annual report MISA called the Swazi Observer, ‘a pure propaganda
machine for the royal family’. It said the Times
of Swaziland publisher, ‘had allowed commercial interests to take
precedence over editorial independence’.

The visit of the Equatorial Guinean
Presidential to Swaziland made headlines in the international media. Swazi
Media Commentary (SMC) said at the time that the Times of Swaziland reported that King Mswati had done a deal with
the President to import crude oil into his kingdom.

The Times
reported Thembinkosi Mamba, Principal Secretary in the Ministry of Natural
Resources and Energy, saying the Swazi Government had plans to build its own
refinery so that, in future, the crude oil would be brought directly to Swaziland
for refinement and separation, thereby, cutting down on costs.

‘Clearly, Swaziland has no need to
import the crude oil and doesn’t have the capacity – nor can it develop the
capacity in the foreseeable future – to process the oil once it receives it.
Mamba’s claim that Swaziland will be able to build its own refinery is a
fantasy.

‘The deal is also too costly. Mamba told
the Times, ‘There are
costs involved in the acquisition of the oil, like the cost of transporting it
to South Africa where it will be refined, and the charges that we will have to
pay for refining it in that country.’

‘Looks like King Mswati is about to enter a bad
deal that will cost his subjects a great deal of money, rather than save them
some.

‘Transparency International has ranked
Equatorial Guinea 168th out of 178 countries for its efforts in tackling corruption.

‘Only last month (December 2011), the UK
International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell told his parliament that
oil wealth was being stolen from Equatorial Guinea ‘for the corrupt and
personal use of an unaccountable and self-serving elite’.

‘The US Justice Department said in
October 2011it was looking to seize assets worth more than US$70 million from
Obiang’s son, Teodoro Nguema Obiang Mangue, including a US$30 million home in
Malibu.

‘In September 2011 the president’s son
visited Swaziland. While he stayed at the five-star Royal Villas Resort (where
the president has been staying this week) he had his bag stolen – containing
US$2.5 million in bank notes. We still don’t know why he came to Swaziland with
so much cash in his case, but it is hard to believe it was for legitimate
reasons.

‘Now, three months later his father is
in town and a needless oil deal is signed with the King.’

The law says that people aged 18 and over can vote, with a
small number of exceptions, including those who are not of sound mind.

The latest estimates suggest the total population of
Swaziland is 1.38 million people.

The total population is broken down by age group.
Unfortunately, the exact number of people aged 18 and above is not measured.
But, the statistics show that there are 557,080 people aged 25 and above in
Swaziland. If the number for those aged 15 to 24 is included the total number
aged 15 and above is 868,858.

Even a conservative estimate would place the number of
people aged 18 and above comfortably above 600,000.

The ECB has almost certainly underestimated the number of
people eligible to vote in the 2013 national election.

But, it was even more wrong at the last election in 2008.
Then, it was estimated that the number of people eligible to vote in Swaziland
was only 400,000. When the ECB signed up 350,778 people to vote it claimed a
huge success, saying 88 percent of those eligible to register actually did so.

However, if the true figure of the numbers eligible to vote
in 2008 was broadly similar to the figure today (600,000), the percentage that
registered falls to 58 percent – which, rather than being a huge success, is a
pretty poor result.

In 2008, only 189,559 people actually voted in the secondary
election (the vote that finally determines who goes to the House of Assembly). This
was only 31 percent of the 600,000 people who were probably eligible to vote.

So, the 2008 election was not a success, and on the basis of
these figures it might be described as a failure.

Registration has until 23 June 2013 to run and media in
Swaziland have been reporting a series of problems, ranging from computer
malfunctions, poorly trained staff not knowing how to operate equipment and
local chieftaincy disputes denying people the opportunity to register.

The Swazi News estimated at the current rate of registration 269,970 people would have signed
up by the time the registration is over.

Burglaries and home invasions occur frequently. Gangs
have been known to break into homes while the residents are still at home.

Pedestrians cannot walk the streets in safety and
robberies take place in broad daylight. Motorists are stopped on the roads and
robbed.

Swaziland’s autocratic ruler King Mswati III and his
supporters constantly say the kingdom is a place of peace. The king, in
particular, tells the international community that all is well in his kingdom
and his subjects are happy and contented.

A report from the United States Department of State contradicts
that picture. It says streets, public parks, roads, homes, restaurants and
hotel rooms are not safe.

The US Department of State has designated Swaziland as a ‘Critical
Threat Crime Post’.

In a report called Overall Crime and Safety Situation in Swaziland it says, ‘Criminals consider
Mbabane, the capital city, and Manzini, Swaziland’s urban industrial center,
prime grounds for operation due to the number of people, businesses, and
affluent areas.

‘Criminals will resort to force if necessary, including
deadly force, in order to accomplish their goal. Gangs are not deterred
by confrontations with their intended victims. Car-jackings are not
common, but they occasionally occur. Crime increases dramatically during
the holiday season.

The report written by US government’s Overseas Security
Advisory Council (OSAC) is intended as guidance to Americans visiting
Swaziland.

It says, ‘Congested urban areas are particularly
dangerous at night; although, daytime larceny is not uncommon. The
presence of other pedestrians on the street should not be taken as an
indication of a secure or safe environment.

‘Many victims report being robbed in broad daylight in
the presence of witnesses.

‘Pedestrians are cautioned not to wear jewelry or carry
expensive items in plain view. It is not advisable to display large
amounts of cash, flashy jewelry, expensive clothing items, or cellular
telephones.

‘Walking around at night, either alone or in a group, is
strongly discouraged.’

It adds, ‘Do not stop your vehicle if you encounter rocks
or logs in the middle of the road. This is a technique used in Swaziland
and South Africa for robbers to force vehicles to stop. Either drive
around the barriers or turn around. Do not stop to assess the situation.

‘Keep belongings out of plain view at all times.
While idling at a light or stop sign, leave adequate space between your vehicle
and the one in front of you so that you can quickly depart should the need
arise. Park only in well-lit areas, preferably in parking lots with a
security guard.’

The Swazi police are slow to respond to incidents, if
they respond at all, the report says.

‘Swazi police consider a 30 minute response time
adequate, even in urban areas. Police are generally willing to assist but
often lack the transportation and resources to properly investigate crimes.’

The report paints a picture of constant danger of crime
in Swaziland. In tips to visitors on how to avoid becoming a victim, it says, ‘Most
crimes that occur in Swaziland are crimes of opportunity. The criminals
are generally interested in cellular phones and cash.

‘Visitors should always be aware of their surroundings
and maintain visual/physical contact with their belongings. Avoid walking
alone, particularly after dark.

‘Travel in groups. Never hail a taxi that has
passengers already in the car. If you take a taxi, ensure it is a
reputable taxi. Dining establishments have been robbed late at night when
there are few diners in the restaurant.’

It adds, ‘The most reoccurring crimes involve robbing
victims on the streets, particularly in residential areas, regardless of the
time of day. Residential break-ins are very common throughout Swaziland,
even when the tenants are in the home. Most residential break-ins occur
at houses without security guards and/or centrally monitored home alarms.
Criminals often perpetrate such robberies using edged weapons, e.g., a knife or
machete, and occasionally firearms.’

It tells visitors to avoid parks in Mbabane, the Swazi
capital. ‘In particular, Coronation Park should be avoided at night and only
visited as a group (more than two people) during daylight hours.

‘This is often the rally point for marches and
demonstrations. At night, criminals have been known to loiter in the
park. As a general rule, visitors should avoid night clubs and walking
around any town after dark to minimize the risk of being victimized.’

Starving people in Swaziland are being denied food by the
government because it is punishing the kingdom’s members of parliament for
passing a vote of no confidence against it, local and international media have
claimed.

Food intended to feed destitute families, especially
those headed by single women with children, has been deliberately left to rot
in government warehouses, they said. One Swazi newspaper said, ‘[T]here could
be a deliberate ploy at cabinet to systematically starve the people’.

Swaziland has a food crisis and in recent years up to a
half of Swaziland’s 1.1 million population have relied on donated food to stop
from starving.

Now, a scandal is being uncovered in Swaziland that
points to the government deliberately withholding food from starving people, in
the hope they will blame their local members of parliament for the problem.

The international news agency IRIN reported the problem is being blamed on ‘bad blood’
between members of parliament (MPs) and members of King Mswati III’s cabinet.
This is after the House of Assembly passed a no-confidence vote in October 2012
against Prime Minister Barnabas Dlamini, who is both a relative and appointee
of the king. The no-confidence vote was later reversed.

The Swazi Observer,
the newspaper in effect owned by King Mswati, in an editorial comment said,
‘[T]here could be a deliberate ploy at cabinet to systematically starve the
people’.

IRIN reported,‘Although the
country has institutions resembling those in democracies, Swaziland's
parliamentarians do not enact legislation; rather, they approve policies of the
king’s appointed cabinet.

‘But MPs are still responsible to their constituents -
voter registration began a few days ago for this year’s scheduled elections,
although a poll date has yet to be announced. Political parties remain banned.

‘Some observers believe the disruption of food supplies
was meant as a lesson for the MPs.

‘Aaron Simelane, a Swaziland-based political commentator,
told IRIN, “MPs are considered community development agents by the people who
vote ... Swazis want their MPs to bring roads, jobs and aid to their
communities, but MPs have no power to do any of these things. [The] cabinet has
this power.

‘“The people do not know this, and when things aren’t
done they blame MPs, who promise to deliver this and that to get elected. By
withholding food aid, [the] cabinet is teaching MPs a lesson about power.”’

Local media in Swaziland reported that ‘hundreds of 50kg
bags of beans, mealie-meal and boxes of cooking oil’ had been left to rot at
the government central warehouse in Matsapha.

IRIN said the spoiled food included, ‘15,000kg of the staple
maize meal, 25,000kg of beans and 600 cartons of vegetable oil.’

The Swazi Observer in an editorial comment stated, ‘[T]ons of donated
staples like maize, beans and cooking oil were deliberately being allowed to
rot at a government granary in Matsapha, while starving people had to contend
with the pangs of hunger out there.

‘We may be forced to agree with the honourables [members
of parliament], who are now claiming there could be a deliberate ploy at
cabinet to systematically starve the people and obliterate them from the face
of their army worm-ravaged areas.’

The Observer
went on to say, ‘Or much sinister still, it is to alienate the present crop of
MPs from their constituents, so they cannot be voted back to parliament, if
that was to happen.

‘Are the hungry people being used to hit back at the MPs
for their still-born vote of no confidence last year? When things happen in
this manner, one starts to believe even the most far-fetched theories, which is
why government should avoid such embarrassing situations at all costs.

‘That people are hungry out there is a given. Even those
who send money home from towns have drastically reduced the amounts they send
as a result of high costs of living and the triple-taxation they are forced to
shoulder.’

The Swazi Government which is hand-picked by King Mswati,
who rules Swaziland as sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch, caused a
scandal in March this year when it was revealed it had sold maize donated forhungry people by Japan, for about US$3 million.

The money was put in a special account at the Central
Bank of Swaziland. The Government has yet to publicly reveal exactly what the
money was spent on.